Just posted: Canon EOS 6D test data and further impressions

We've just posted an extra six pages to our Canon EOS 6D coverage including data and analysis from all our key tests. We're working towards completing our review and wanted to publish this information as we know a lot of readers are interested in this camera. We've had the camera in the office for a couple of weeks and have used this time to expand our impressions of the camera. This will be the last update before the full review is published very soon.

We've added our noise, dynamic range, resolution and test scene shots to the preview, including analysis. We've also gone back and re-worked the introduction and expanded on our first impressions of the camera.

Comments

I think landscape artists will benefit from a new breed of cameras which will be like Leica Monochrome but shoots 3 consecutive shot through 3 RGB color filters, which will be combined with internal camera software into a color image.

The grey highlights and unnatural colors of today's digital cameras make me not want to photograph landscapes these days.

I shoot and print photos on the spot. Literally people pay me for the photos I had taken just minutes earlier. I was looking for a new camera and the 6D seems to be just what I need. The ability to transfer images to my computer and print them without the need to have my camera connected via USB, using native Canon software is a blessing. I tried EyeFi and it wasn't fast enough and didn't allow for 2-way communication with my computer. I plan on pulling the 6D trigger really soon and I'm looking forward to it. I have noticed that the longer I wait, the lower the prices have gone. Maybe it's due to it constantly being bashed for its initial cost?

Sorry, but my understanding is that it wont load to your computer...The software is for iPad's and iPhones not for laptops and computers.I think that if you are purchasing the 6D with this in mind, you will be sorely disappointed.

Bamboojled, I think your understanding is wrong. The Software has been available for Windows PCs for quite a while. In Addition it is now available for iOS. See the manufacturers software download pages.

Yes I do own it. And I do shoot with it....however....the studio strobe sync speed is really limited to 1/160 of a second....not the 1/180th that is available with Canon speedlights. At least I haven't figured out how to set 1/180th manually on the camera. AF is positive...and fewer AF points may make it faster than a camera with 30+ AF points not sure. I used the D600 for a shoot a few weeks ago...competent camera...but low light output was not spectacular. So far I am more impressed by really high ISO ambient shots out of the 6D much more than I was with those from the D600. (both used with 85mm 1.8 primes). My biggest gripe is the lack of fast (2.0 or faster) primes in the 75--80mm range that I am used to coming from 1.6x body....and I find the 85 a tad too long for my work....50mm on 7D is better fit in some ways. But the high ISO still output is quite good. WiFi to computer is nice to attract interest of clients at shows and may pay for the camera by itself.

I'd be curious to discover how many people that claim dual card slots are important ensure that they using archival off site storage for their images, and insure that in case of hard drive or local RAID fail / theft have remotely stored images.

I've had far more hard drives fail than I have memory cards (touch wood)

People seem to be ignoring the significance of the built-in Wifi and GPS. Sure, narrow-minded photographers will ignore anything that doesn't specifically impact picture-taking. But we're living in a new age now, and not everyone is so narrow in their perspective of what a camera can and should be able to do. Most cameras are already more capable in the picture-taking department than most of their users ever will be. Things like Wifi and GPS acknowledge that we now live in a very web-connected and location-intelligent world, and these things are very important in today's new world...at least for those of us who are smart enough to embrace what these new features allow us to do. But alas, there will still be people who will say "if it doesn't help me take better pictures, it's a pointless junk feature!" Then they'll go back to pixel peeping details and differences in IQ that no one will ever notice anyway.

I think the more important point is that the cost of the WiFi and GPS features could have been put to better focusing. WiFi and GPS are useful features, but a smartphone can do that and take pictures too, leaving the *serious* photography to the SLR.

The other thinking of who is "narrow-minded" man: You speak in favour of consumerism and wastage, of fashion and style dictated by commercial interest, of very shallow perception of world and things - why not to have it when it is here? In fact - this thinking is OLD WORLD thinking not the new one. Not all things do the same service for everybody. In my opinion the more narrow minded is he who must have things because he is said that it is a "must have" and that it is a question of being "in". Such man is a slave of the other's commercial intentions. Better and wider thinking is - to buy things when I really have reason to have them, not because some (or many) my neighbours have them (and they discard them to garbage before they apprehend them to replace them by another "must"). Too many things - too little freedom of thinking and creating and living with the things I already have.

And I also think that Wi-fi and GPS are dispensable in DSLR by contrast to mobile phone. I think that mobile phone is a field unlimitid for electronic features, but DSLR should be a field unlimited for best optical, photographic and image perfection features. All toy-features extra mean extra money for nothing - only for amazing marketng list of data - to confuse narrow people.

I think by your standards The Samsung Android Camera Beats the 1DX Because they have blogging and Share Buttons ... Give me more camera and I can Link my iphone to my camera and Tag the GPS / Share .. here is a cheap eye-Fi card that can "Upgrade" any cam to become wi-fi capable

My Take on a 6D Still the single AF Point and the Gutless FPS ,

A capable bridge cam can take 10FPS, Wif-Fi : What about the AF points how can you upgrade that Once you paid some 2K on a Cam

@Mansour228: "My Take on a 6D Still the single AF Point and the Gutless FPS"

Believe it or not, there are still plenty of us who mainly only use the center point, and don't shoot high speed action where high FPS is needed. I'm still happily using a 5D! You have to also keep in mind that great photography has, and still is, being produced without the need for a gazillion focus points and 10fps. In fact, I would say that *most* of the good photography that is being produced today isn't relying on a gazillion focus points and high fps bursts!

@Mansour228: "Back to Basics Please" -

Uh...isn't getting back to fewer focus points and fewer FPS an example of "back to basics?" LOL. What hypocrisy! Frankly, I actually think that the 6D really is a modern-day "back to basics" camera: center cross focus, minimal FPS, location aware, connected, compact. That's today's "back to basics" camera...not mucho focus points and mucho FPS so that people can just run and gun, spray and shoot.

A camera should have good AF System , Good Shootout Speed , and your comment is made around narrow minded IQ_Pixel Peeping Snappers

Am not gonna make this a long story : I used the 6D (Owned it for 2 weeks) .. Sold it and Got My Self a 60D for the Amazing Keeper 10-22 Lens and Got a 5D MKII with Magic Lantern .. How come this setup is better than the 6D let me tell you two reasons -among many-

1 ) Flash Sync Speed in the 6D is limited to 1/180 . The 5D MKII and the 60D can do 1/250 + High Speed Sync

(2) The Dynamic Range +/-EV on the 6D is limited to 2 effective stops while 5D/60D has 3 and so on

I feel that you misunderstood my comment : The 6D is nothing but a stripped down camera that will "Curb" any real / Enthusiast Photographer if used as a main body.

When I said Back to Basics I didn't mean go back 10 Years. What I meant is what should a Full Frame Camera with a Price Tag above 2500$ have

Only EF-S lens I've ever bought was the 10-22 EF-S. But even if I had bought more EF-S lenses, what's so bad about just keeping an old EF-S-compatible body to use them on? There's no rule that says that you can only own one camera at a time, or that you can only use one format. Plenty of people use both APS-C and FF bodies. So if you "go full frame", it doesn't necessarily mean you have to completely abandon APS-C. Each has its pros and cons. I enjoy using both, and that's why I have both APS-C and FF bodies.

The idea that contented eos apsc users will switch to Nikon if they upgrade to FF because they can no longer use their ef-s lenses is funny. Why? Would they be able to use those ef-s lenses on the D600?

One should be discontented with an entire system before one leaves it for another.

Would the sales from their ef-s lenses suddenly make the Nikon lenses more affordable? Or would they suddenly make the ef lenses undesirable?

I guess the question should be -what does one gain and lose should one choose the D600 over the 6D after selling one's ef-s lenses?

As I have often mentioned here they have the same price in my place so savings would not count. Specially if you know that Nikon lenses are more expensive.

The D600's edge is on tracking focus but this is being offset by the low light focus of the 6D. So for me this makes the 6D the low-light choice.

Some of the Honorable People Mentioned the only reason I stuck my self with APS-C .. The Magical 10-22mm .. I agree also on stacking good quality EF lenses too I have the 50mm , 100mm , the 24-105L, 70-200 F4 L and the only EF-S I keep is the 10-22

I was thinking if I want a Full Frame camera and needed the wide-angle capability I would need A full Frame Body (Say 2.K) and a EF 16-35 (1.3K) = Total 3'300 Bucks .. You can do aalmost the same shots with your 550D + 10-22

I know I can get an adapter to use Nikon Glass on a Canon . But Losing Aperture values (irrelevant if you got a fixed f2.8 / F4)

Why can't someone get/invent a spacer/adapter to use EF-S on a Full Frame ... Wonder why

Probably, no one will care, but I'll share WHY I'm staying with Canon. It's not the lens I've got (looking to upgrade from a 5d and a handful of lens): it's that it FEELS better. I went down the the local shop and spent 15 minutes playing with a d600 and a 6d.... I really wanted to like the d600 but it just didn't fit in my hands. The grip's sculpted but hard, so if your hand fits it then great. Mine didn't, so it just didn't feel right - and the reason I sold my d90. All the specs in the world can't make up for comfort..... Mind you, don't remind me of that when I really need a fill-in flash!

Actually this was the reason I picked the 50D over the D90 despite the fact that hallf the reviewers were pointing out an MP overload on the 50D which they say caused excessive noise and high ISO banding. I was coming from a rebel and boy did the 50D feel good.

Played with the EOS 6D not long ago and was really pleased with the results. This is not a camera for action or sports. It's a great FF camera with excellent IQ (as good as the MkIII on stills). The size was nice in the hand and access to the controls was very easy to use. The WiFi is an outstanding feature with the app. Easy to install and even easier to use. As for the usual complainers, please try before you moan. I've said this many times spec's are not all that makes a good camera and the EOS 6D is proof of that...

Whats the fuss? What's the bashing for? The 6D is better and cheaper than the first 5D when it came out. The 6D is better and cheaper than the 5Dmk2 when it first came out. The 5D mk3 is better than the 6D but not cheaper. The D600 is a better spec'd camera than the 6D but is of anther brand and system and from where I live in Southeast Asia is not any cheaper. And the 6D's IQ is on the same level as the 5Dmk3 and D600.

If the 5Dmk2 still gives you what you need then stick to that cam. If you can afford the 5Dmk3 then by all means buy it. If the D600's specs weighs more to you than the EOS system then go for it.

The Canon target market for this cam is a very palpable one. The 6D is aimed for budget-conscious-eos-loving-apsc-users who want an upgrade in IQ but are not crazy about speed.

What to do with the ef-s lenses? Buy a cheap used crop body if you value them or just sell them. You also will not be using them should you go for either the 5Dmk3 or the D600.

After what I've been hearing from Nikonians about the D600, I don't think I would ever want one. Canon is always consistant with quality and customer service. I have yet to have a Canon crap out on me, and I have yet to have bad service from them. They are reliable, so I stick with them. I'm not saying Nikon isn't, but in other forums I've read comparing the 6D to the D600 many Nikon users complained of problems with their D600s and crappy service from Nikon.

Canon users have a short memory...5DMII dust problem5DMIII Light leakT4I Grip needing replacement1DMKIII Severe focusing issuesNow I hear that the 5DIII has trouble focusing when using the 600XT and focus assist.

Your right, specs aren't everything, but charging more for way less is :)

I would still Get a 5D MK II and Install ML on it for less than this thing

I was on the market for a new Cam, no 5D MK II stock , 5D MKIII is priced similar to my car ! , Don't want to sepnd the money on a 7D (Knowing that it will be written off soon)

I simply opted for a 60D , saving extra cash for a used 5D MKII Body

The shop guy tried to show me the 6D , but seriously ; 1 Cross Type AF point (One!!) ... No Flash, No , No , 3fps !! ..... But it has a GPS just in case you are dead they can know where exactly it was when you had enough of your camera dis-functionality and you decided to kill yourself ..

Canon !- Price 6d's delusional, or is the democratization of the full frame? Damn not even put a flash and a removable screen.- The new lenses are so expensive that only professionals can buy.- What is this suicidal policy?

Read theses comments. Many people are perfectly happy with what the 6D offers. Others will buy it just because it has Canon written on it. Is the D600 the better overall camera? Any one being objective would have to say yes. But that doesn't mean the 6D wont sell or isn't' a good choice for some.

I still struggling to understand the reasons of releasing new mode with bran new FF sensor , while cropping this much from AF . Taking away the build-in flash , suggests the orientation on pro users (sports...) , but slow AF (clearly weaker that one of the 7D ) would be "stop sing" for them.

I know what you mean. If I was canon I would have just used the same sensor from the 5DIII. I mean they are so close to each other it makes no differnce anyway so why waste money designing and manufacturing a new one? Maybe if they just used the 5DIII sensor they could have sold the camera for a couple hundred less.

I look at the specs this way. Canon made FF rebel that had some features slightly better than they are on APS-C rebels and Nikon made a FF D7000 that had some features slightly worse than they are on the APS-C D7000.

Why are people still calling the 6D a FF Rebel? If it were it would made of the same materials Rebels are and would be called a Rebel. Why is it that anything that doesn't match up to Canon's "greatest" is automatically labeled a Rebel? I've owned 2 Rebels, the 60D and the 7D. The 6D is by no means a Rebel in any way, shape or form.

I'm still using a 5D, and have never considered its AF to be slow. Sure, it might be "slow" for fast sports and action photography, but a 5D isn't meant to be a fast sports and action camera; and neither is the 6D! Get a clue: you can still be a "pro" shooter, and not shoot "sports!" There's portraits, weddings, landscapes, still life, street, etc...all situations where the 6D's AF will be plenty fast.

@Ak, Thanks for your concern but please don't worry. There seems to be a perception that if it isn't the best available, then it must be terrible.

I have around 6,000 keepers from my 5d, and around 18,000 from my 5D2, all nicely focussed, some even perfectly.

This new camera looks to be even better and cheaper, so your worries are misplaced.

I almost never used my built in flash on my 20D, but I do have a nice compact 270EX, which is more powerful, more controlable, bounceable, and with its own battery so it doesn't deplete the camera's quite so much.

lol BeanyPic you are the only one who has no idea. The 5DIII is well known to have heavy noise reduction even on the standard stetting for jepegs. Even canon's own initial test shots when the camera was announced had it. All you have to do is LOOK with unbiased eyes and it is plain as day.

Yup. Shoot raw solves the problem! You can make a custom noise reduction to your taste which will come out better than default JPEG incamera noise reduction. Also don't forget one missing thing you forgot is anti-aliasing filter can be aggressive in some camera that make it looks soft enough to take notice of.

You did well till you came to your last sentence. Reminded me of those who think the only reason canon users are not selling their gears and buying nikon is because there is something wrong with them, they don't understand science and graphs, they probably are morons.

I'm clicking around the DPREVIEW studio scene comparing the 6D and the D600 and trying to keep an objective mind. While the 6D is doing a very good job in some things like dynamic range in shadows, what's just as obvious is how it's the same old Canon in terms of purple slanted blues, reds more orange than red, and anemic yellows. Beginning to wonder if Canon is reducing the density of their CMOS color filters to play keep up with Nikon / Sony. In fact, some of the color rendition differences are quite startling, but Canon users just don't seem to take color accuracy very seriously.

The color accuracy of all Canon and Nikon DSLRs is close enough for general use. If you truly need truly accurate color because you are shooting products for a website/print catalog that have to match each other or something similar, the only way to get it is a completely color managed work flow which includes something like a color checker passport for calibration. If you are doing that the color accuracy of the sensor in the camera isn't even a factor.

Ah, yeah also if you shoot raw and use RAW editing. The camera does not fully process the colours. So the RAW program handle different way than camera does like ACR LR4 which is pretty good even I have tried default Adobe standard and it looks good. Skies look blue, red look red, etc. But beware any ACR software has bit strong toward green. DxO did a good job on realistic colour in raw so far. Capture One tend to go for bit warmer colours I think probably bit strong toward yellow and orange. So its good to have a play with raw file you will get better result out of it.

No serious shooter relies exclusively on the straight-out-of-camera colors. Shoot RAW and use an X-Rite ColorChecker Passport (or some other colorpatch calibration tool) to create a custom profile for your particular camera. That way, all your colors will look right no matter which camera you use. The reality is that color output can vary from camera to camera, even within the same brand and within the same model of camera! That's why if you really want the most accurate colors, you create a custom color profile for your camera, and apply it when processing your images in your RAW software.

Just came from the Calumet Photography store. Checked out the 6D next to the 60D. They are totally identical for size, weight, buttons, etc, save when you remove the lens and look at the mirrors.

They also have the 7D and 5D, wow, those 2 must be 1.5x as large and at least 1.5x as heavy, just by eyeing them next to each other and lifting them on the counter. Particularly the 7D is amazing for is huge size and weight, I know it has a nice body, but something that large/heavy just to house a M4/3 sensor? The 6D has a FULL SIZED SENSOR, yet the 7D dwarfs it. Crazy.

D60 is on sale for $725, is that a good price, I wonder? Sales chap said the thing has been out almost for 3 years and due for a replacement by Canon very soon. Maybe that is why they have the $200 OFF deal going for it?

Sorry, I had meant to say of course that the 7D has an APS-C sized sensor, not M4/3. Was too late to edit the comment, apologies.

And just what is the deal with the D60a model that I spotted on the Canon web site? What is the difference between the regular D60 and the one w. the "a" in the model name? For a whopping US$500 higher list price, it betetr be a whole lot. Maybe the "a" variant is a newer release than the regular 60D that now has the $200 OFF deal?

Not sure if they are coming out next with a "60Db" model, or maybe they retire the D60 line and have something like a D70? Maybe even this year?

I would suppose , that cropped sensor was the "standard" for semi pro (7D) , not the actual physical lack of space , large ,heavy body carry a big ergonomic factor in it , some may reject for example NEX7 for this very reason

Please, if you are a full-time photographer and support yourself through photography work, and make your living shooting full time...please click like on this post. I am very curious. Thanks in advance.

We test each camera's ISO accuracy and report the results in every review. Note that we use the ISO12232:2006 'Standard Output Sensitivity' definition, which is fully expected to give different results compared to DxOMark's saturation-based measurements.

I've seen nothing in years of extensive testing to support your assertion that shutter speed and aperture settings are neither stable nor repeatable - indeed quite the opposite. There are specific exceptions - certain cameras get quite inconsistent at shutter speeds faster than about 1/1000 sec, for example - but in general electronically-controlled shutters and diaphragms do pretty much what they say.

Eyes trump any tests. From the samples, yes even raw, it's clear that dxomark scoring is a joke. While the curves my be unbiased, the scoring system certainly isn't. The only thing that goes for sony sensors is read noise. Nothing else. Funny how the sensor rating of dxomark is biased toward this parameter.

@zig: The curves are an expression of what is measured. It is not biased nor is it a parameter nor is it about noise. The more spatially averaged the curves are - better - see Nyquist. Eyes dont trump a test their are not measurement instruments - nor is your brain. So yes science has a liberal bias or maybe you just never payed attention in Physics, Math or reading comprehension? If that is the case maybe you are just seeing noise?

Why do people confuse so many things... For now, Nikon (or should I say sony ?) has taken the lead in terms of sensor performance.... Want to see it with your eyes? Take two shots at a given ISO setting with one a 6D and one a D600. Then take the raw files, and pull the shadows (or increase exposure) by three stops on both files, with zero noise reduction, and look at what's recovered from the shadows....Or take high ISO shots in Raw, and look at them with NR set to 0, Canon shows more banding. Okay. Then What ? There's clearly more DR on the Nikon at base ISO, okay... Not that you would pull out 3 stops from the shadows everyday anyway... Except if you like overdone HDR...Then at higher ISO, which is what everybody talks about, there's less than 0.7 EV of difference... Chill out, a camera is not solely defined by 0,7 EV difference in SNR...

By the way interestingly in this article Pr Van Den Hamer, talks about Canon, expected by 2013 new line of production for cmos chips, which should enable them to catch up and well who knows get the lead back... That's how it's done, companies invest, when one makes a break through it takes the lead, until someone finds something more powerful...

In tems of high ISO performance the D600 files look flat... whichever way you look at it... trying in vain to find an equilibrium between noise suppression and detail retention...

Canon have definitely mastered their JPEG algorithms... because no Nikon camera even comes close in this regard... In RAW both Canon & Nikon are incredibly close... i suppose it would be a matter of personal prefrence that determins which one is better...

Exactly where the banding is that much more prevalent, is beyond comprehension... The 6D is visibly cleaner with the text, intricate fibres and colour saturation better rendered...

@ yabokkie - The 6D IQ is as good if not slightly better than the D4 ... the 1D X is marginally better than both...

As for DXO's testing methodology... considering they rate the Canon SX50 HS 1/2.3" sensor higher than the Canon G15's 1/1.7" sensor, one can only come to the conclusion that their results should be taken with a pinch of salt...

Take a D4 or D600 files at low ISO, and pull the shadows with NR set to 0, you can pull 3 stops, you'll still have 0 noise in your image... Do the same with a 1DX or a 5DIII or even a 6D, and outch... the shadows get much dirtier, much quicker. So in terms of DR... no comparison. (If you want to know about banding, look at shadowy areas of the image in 6D files, they show some yellow, sometimes purple lines, which as long as you don't pull the shadows too far is irrelevant, but still, gives you an idea of the sensor limits).

About High ISO, download the Raws from 6D and D600 and just look at the golden marking on the bottle of Baileys on the left. The D600 show slightly better results. Methinks that's the 0.7 EV advantage in low light performance DxO is talking about.

"the location of the power switch behind the mode dial is far less convenient than placing it around the shutter button (as Nikon, Pentax and Sony all do). None of these are deal-breakers, but they make the 6D a bit less pleasant to use than it could be."

Really?

Anyway, based on the sentiments expressed in the preview, we can expect ~ 79 to 80% on final score. No gold or silver award whatsoever.

Yes, really. A power switch that can be flicked with your index finger without moving from the shooting position is far more convenient than one that requires you to shift your grip on the camera or lens.

Obviously it's not just the power switch position that makes the camera a bit less pleasant to use than it could be - the other points that you've selectively failed to quote matter more.

I'm not sure why I would be constantly turning the camera on/off if I'm trying to maintain a shooting position. The auto-off feature on my 7D works well, I assume the one on the 6D works equally so.

I don't touch the on-off button unless I'm stowing the camera, in which case the on-off position is meaningless. In fact, as I don't use it while shooting, I'd rather it be out of the way of the controls I do use.

Mr. Westlake, convenience of use is subjective. I don't care what is convenient for you. It is wrong for you to assume that what you find convenient is what all of us should also find convenient. I am sure that if the power switch of the 6D is close to the shutter button, you guys will comment "the power switch position is inconvenient as it can be accidentally flicked when reaching for the shutter button." Gosh.

Yes, convenience is subjective. Many parts of reviews are subjective. Seriously, though, why would anyone bother to write a review if they couldn't include anything subjective? It would just end up being a rehash of the spec sheet, with a few extra product photos and photos taken by the product. That's not what we want. We like to hear other people's subjective opinions.

@Noogy: The fact that we haven't complained about the inconvenience of a round-shutter power switch on the Sony, Nikon or Pentax models that now use it as standard rather negates your argument, I think.

Our job is to assess cameras and how they compare to competitors. We've said plenty of positive things about the 6D's handling and ergonomics, but it's only fair to point out those (few) areas where we consider it to fall short. If you don't consider these things important to you, then fair enough, I really don't mind in the slightest.

If Andy Westlake is not using Canon personally, I can see why he said he doesn't like the power switch position. There are many places to look for design issue, but certainly power switch position is not one of those. For me, I seldom turn the power switch "off" as the camera is so easy and quicker to return to shooting mode than flipping the power switch itself. Just like what @balios said, if I don't use it that often, I would rather it is out of the way while I am shooting. Honestly speaking, whenever I see nitpick like this, I am pretty certain that that reviewer is from Nikon camp.

I do not own a Canon DSLR, but went to Calumet today to handle a few. First time in my hands were the 6D and 60D (the staff failed to disclose to me that there is also a 60Da model, not clue why that differs from the regular 60D, anyhow).

Although the 6D and 60D looked and felt totally identical to me, save for the swivel screen on the D60 and no swivel on the D6), as a novice user I was able to turn both cameras ON and OFF without fumbling for the power switches, or feeling that one type was better then the other. It is just a stupid little switch, people. Really not even worth a single sentence one way or the other. But I did like the switch design on the 6D a bit better.

Andy, by this time you probably have understood that none of the Canon users have any issue with the position of the power switch. People don't need to use power switch while shooting. I recently bought a D600 and realized how I liked Canon's design of placing the shutter button alone in a depression that fits my index finger. The ring of power switch around the shutter button as used by most manufacturers, while not an inconvenience, doesn't feel as smooth as Canon's design of leaving it alone in a groove.

All the people focus on one DPReview statement (i-e the power switch), and accuse the reviewers of making personal assumptions. And then they all start by: "Personally...." "I don't mind..." And gladly take their own opinion as a general truth for all other, in that case Canon, users.

When I read "I don't see why I would be turning on and off the camera..." or "I never switch it off" Really? Never? And you never travel from places to places on your journeys where you would benefit from saving battery... Never? Well read it again, doesn't it seem ridiculous...

DPR is not saying you do that fifteen times a day, nor that is a huge inconvenience... Simply, that all other manufacturers have started to line up with "power switch under the trigger" design and that they like it because it's convenient.

Chill out... It's a power switch...You're entitled to disagree and voice it, but that's completely overboard...

The reviewers give their opinion, you don't have to take it for granted, I'm looking to buy into a full frame system, I'm browsing review, but I'l be sure to try out both the glass and the cameras before purchasing.

Reviews give you a bit more insight about what the camera can do, what are its limits, and well what you can expect from it.

Sometimes reviews also help you notice or think about things you would not have paid attention to otherwise.

But that's all it is...

Sure DPR probably influences buyers, but seriously, you find they're so much biased? I don't think so... Went and toyed with files from Canon, Nikon cameras, even Sony, and Fujifilm, went in shop and gave a go at the D600 and the 5DIII (no 6D yet) just for a couple of minutes to have an impression...

Well I think what they say in general make sense, of course there are things I too prefer otherwise...

@Nerval, you've made a point here already, if the power switch is something people will use it barely during shooting session, why put it right under the index finger?

Honestly speaking, I don't see any difference in terms of battery life between switching off the camera or let it goes off by itself. During a photo session, I don't recall a single time that I need to turn off and turn on the camera again. My only bold assumption of Nikon's design of putting the power switch under the shutter button is that it is a legacy design, before there is a feature of self auto off feature being implemented on SLR body. Unlikely, but that's the only reason I can think of.

During transportation, then, the position of the switch is really a non issue.

3 major manufacturers put the power switch under the shutter doesn't mean Canon's approach is not good. The reviewer might just also add to his "personal" comment about the rear dial too, all other manufacturers are using a thumb turning dial while Canon is using a thumb wheel.

Whenever I read comment like what Andy Westlake wrote in here, it reminds me I am reading review from those gadget site, not from a professional photography site.

@CD Cooker, well yeah, my main point was mostly, if I want to dumb it down: - Trend is trigger under shutter. - Who cares it has a minimal impact on use.... - DPReview's reveiwer critic makes sense if he agrees to this trend - So nothing to be flustered about, it's a review, it does not claim to be absolute un-challenged truth...==> So no need to make such a big deal about a... Power Switch...

After when I travel to different spots on the same day, I usually turn off my equipment between each location... I do not care much about the power switch though. As I said my point was mainly to show the conversation is overboard, for such a small point.

Although I have to disagree with you about gadget site, because a reviewer express his perception of something you deem subjective does not make it completely irrelevant.

@NervalI don't think anybody is making a big deal here.Andy mentioned something as inconvenience. We could have taken that as his personal preference. But when he came back to defend himself it was clear that he was pointing out something that should be applicable to all or most photographer, shooting index finger should have access to the power switch. So, it was only reasonable to point out that Andy got it wrong, people don't need to use power switch during shooting, so it can't be an inconvenience by his own logic.DPreview and Andy are excellent at reviewing cameras. I think he should remove this part from the final review. It makes him look biased against Canon, which he is not.

One point I need to make here is that the 6D is distinctly different from other Canon cameras, because if you have GPS and/or Wi-Fi turned it drains the battery relatively fast even in standby mode. So if you use these features, suddenly it makes sense to keep it turned off, at which point the position of the power switch becomes much more noticeable than on the 5D Mark III, for example.

Barring several on this forum rest of you self absorbed technology junkies never get tired of repeating yourselves. No matter how many times you write here the camera manufactures don't take any notice of your adolescent idiocy. The proof is that each time a new camera comes out you complain and whinge like a spoiled child who didn't get the toy s/he wanted.

Still can't beat Nikon D800 and D600 by dynamic range unfortunately in dxomark test. But the dpreview has different view of point of testing the dynamic range using different method than dxomark me think. I see Canon 5D MK III only just beat Nikon D800 by one stop in dynamic range on this forum here. But in the dxomark it seems that D800 beats 5D MKIII by a few stops. So something is fishing to me really. The rest of other test are pretty much similar mostly toward ISO and colours per bit though. I am not sure which one is more accurate in test. ;)

With Nikon Raw files you can pull the shadows like you can only dream on a Canon file. You can shoot indiscriminately on the left side of the histogram protecting your highlights. I find the same with my Pentax 645D. This gives you a much larger dynamic range. However you really have to watch the highlights, Canon offers the smoothest transition there, while on Nikon there is no margin of error, so shooting on the right side of the histogram like you can do with Canon is very dangerous.

You are right that current Nikon cameras can do a lot more than current Canon cameras with regard to shadow lifting. But there is a limit. I recently bought a D600. While it is better than my 5D3 in shadow lifting, it is able to do less than I expected. In very difficult situations it fails to pull shadows without noise.

Yeah, in my experience my 7D camera I previously had, I tried pulled the shadow detail to reveal but horrible noise was increased in shadow so had to use noise reduction on these shadow affected area. Even in low iso image. But 7D did well coping with harsh highlight. Now I have Sony Nex 7 and I have noticed it is not much difference from Canon 7D apart from Sony has bought licence built in camera software of DRO and HDR from other company that is clever to have. Why not on other brand? Or are they just inventing themselves. lol Although Canon 5D MKII and Canon 5D MKIII has much better dynamic range than 7D due to larger area of sensor is the reason why and using expensive lens helps to bring in more light to it. The Sony that I do have one now I can use incamera DRO or HDR and I do not need to pull out shadow detail at all. Pretty impressive invention though I think!

D6 has skewed color space to give glary pics, overamplifying the sensor. Most likely down to give "vibrant" colors at POS. TV makers do this to their shopdisplays too. Something is amiss in Canonland. Wifi is a slow gimmick at 24mb filesize and 200 plus files to download, dual slots much better. High ISO is a gimmick. Pristine 50-100 is happiness.

the D600 is a cheap poorly built camera as with the lowly Canon EOS6D(there is no D6).IMO, they are almost the identical , very low quality plastic cheap cameras wihtout any new innovation.if you want to get a gimmick free real good FF camera , try the Sony A99v.the EVF is the future and OVF is a thing of the past.

"cheap poorly built camera" and "lowly Canon EOS6D" - obviously you've never tried either camera. And you've never used them in tough environments. (my D600 has survived a pretty nasty rainstorm without any problem)"EVF is the future" - yes, for people who love it when their batteries run low, love the slower response/inability to deliver LV between frames above 3 fps, enjoy a dim view in daytime or like screwing up their night vision in the dark, and don't quite realize that other cameras have a LCD, giving them all the EVF's advantages too...Look - the a99 is a great camera, and it's clear that you like it. But I suggest you double check your statements about the 6D and D600.

D600 and 6D will outperform Sony A99v most definitely in test. A99v has lost about 1/3 of light entering into sensor instead going into AF phase detection via translucent fixed mirror. That force Sony to increase exposure by 1/3 to compensate with and causes more increment of noise than the D600 and 6D. Thats the big problem. D6 and D600 has light directly onto sensor because mirror goes up when picture is about to be taken which is much better off and minimize the problem.

@wakaba, well I have to disagree with you. Those 6D were preview pic and they cannot adjust setting as it is restricted by Canon during preview time. They can use their own setting once camera is released in stock. They can use their own setting. But at the time of preview you cannot. You must stick to the rules set out by company for doing the preview shot. They will tell you what you must do as you are told. He agreed to borrow camera for preview but at the time of borrow he must follow the rules as an agreement.

@chlamchowderI jumped from a900 to a99 because of my high end lens setup.Having become sick of this discussions whether a99 is competitor of D600/6D or D800/5D3 i wanted to make my personal objective judgement.During Photokina I had a chance to play a little bit with all 5, and I'd rather say it plays with the big guys. Really, nothing critical to rave about D600/6D. There are certain basic things, where the a99 is closer to D800/5D3. Shutterspeed, WB, tracking AF, configurability.I agree that EVF is question of taste (I still love my a900's OVF), but putting away the physical cause of loosing ~ a stop High ISO capability the overall IQ again is closer to the big boys.

I was at the Philadelphia Calumet Photography store earlier today, checking out cameras, they had all the Sony Alpha models, I just looked at 2 of them. The OLED EVF did not impress me, and the LCD VF were so jerky when zooming in and out, you had to basically telephone in your next picture. Looking at the EVF on the Sony gave me a headache inside of a few minutes.

OLED is not a value point for me in a VF, and since all cameras these days have 3LCD screens in the rear, why do you need to duplicate things and drain power with an LCD screen + LCD VF, or an OLED screen + and OLED VF?

Looked through the OVFs of a few DSLRs as well, and my eyes immediately thanked me.

ianimal - I'd caution against getting a 28mm and a 35mm. 28mm isn't much wider. A better combo would be 24, 35, 50, 85.

You can get all those in Sony mount and there is one huge advantage of doing that on an A99 - the in body image stabilization. All the lenses become stabilized.

In the never ending "my high ISO is better than your high ISO" debate in-body stabilization seems to get overlooked these days but it is still a heck of a feature that extends low light capability even further for suitable subjects.

@3systers...: Actually these fresh Nikon lenses have very very good optical properties, build quality is just fine.

Personally I use a very fresh 50mm/1.4G and the latest Nikon 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF Nikkor on my D600.

The 180mm is a perfect lens - it replaces 135 and 210. Its lighter, very sharp at -1 already, very comfortable to use and a virtual tank - build quality is spectacular. Zoom is slightly slower than a good ultrasonic motor lens but still ok.

I'm much more impressed (in a negative sense) by the high noise of the Sony A99.To me it looks as if it is almost a full stop behind its competitors. Is this the price you have to pay for the fixed mirror ?

even so, it is still better in REAL LIFE because it has no mirrorshock , no annoying OVF and most importantly the Sony si stabilized.the D600 and the 6D are slightly better at ISO800 and up in a lab. but in real life , the A99v is better than the D800, the D600, the 5D3 and the 6D in most of scenes, plus the Sony has better more accurate AF low light AF(especially compared to poor low light AF of this gen of Nikon FX). so as a whole package the Sony wins in most of real life situations.finally, most of online reviews never mention about the fact but the unique flip-out screen of the Sony allows us to shoot very low angle or hip level in a crowded street , combined this with the excellent AF in LV mode , this camera is a real winner for candid street work.

I disagree.I think people get too caught up over this 'mirror shock' fallacy. In real life the D600 has a fine detail advantage over the a99, as long as you have good technique (read several reviews...like http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2012/12/27/sonys-alpha-99-mastery-wrapped-in-dilemma/). Over a certain range of low shutter speeds the a99 might be better, but you wouldn't want to handhold at those shutter speeds anyways. Oh, and if you're using a tripod, there's MLU.The a99 does give you dismal battery life compared to any other DSLR over $1000 (let alone over $2000), more noise, and an AF system that looks rather dated compared to everything except the 6D. The EVF can't match a good OVF for action shooting.And finally, a D600 with a CLM-V55 still costs less than the a99.

The a99 is a good camera - it's just not "better in real life". That depends on what you're doing, and there are a lot of real life situations where the D600 wins.

Both the 6D and D600 are excellent tools with superb IQ. If I happened to be in the market for an entry level FF I'd have to choose the D600 for the slightly better sensor technology: the D4-level high ISO ability, the D800-level DR and perhaps most importantly, for the 100% OVF. I was a little surprised that Canon chose to use a 97% Pentaprism finder as even the 7D has a 100% VF. But I suppose costs had to be cut somewhere.

But honestly both cameras are so good that it is virtually impossible for them to be a limiting factor in anyone's photography.

The D600 only has D4-level high ISO ability up to ISO 12800. At ISO 25600, the actual noise level might not be too far off from the D4, but the D600's image really starts to lose color accuracy in the shadows. I suspect the D4 doesn't suffer from that.

Illumina: my deciding factor for a system always would be the lenses available ;-), never the number of card slots. I tried the dual slot of my 5D3 once and then never again. One 32 GB card is good enuff for most long shooting days...

@picturenaut : of course there are more factors, i realize i made wrong impression with my sentences..For me if i go back to canon, i won't look at 6D because it's single slot.. It's not about the capacity but it's about safety feeling when i shot something important, i have it backup in 2 slots, so if anything bad happened to one of it, i still have the others..That's why if i go back to Canon i will choose 5D3 not 6D..I think every camera nowaday are awesome.. It's down to personal preferences..Cheers..

"If I happened to be in the market for an entry level FF I'd have to choose the D600 for the slightly better sensor technology."

I agree. I just learned that the Nikon uses a propritery internal sensor washing technique in the D600, by which I mean that the camera apparently does its own contaminant based depositing of beauty spots on the sensor *usually in the top-left quadrant). The Canons are clean and boring in comparison.

Re. Sony Alpha 99, I just handled it briefly for the first time, and found it brute and huge. I did not like the EVF, either. Looked at an Alpha 57 as well, heck, that was even worse.

"For me if I go back to Canon, I won't look at 6D because it's single slot.. It's not about the capacity but it's about safety feeling when i shot something important, i have it backup in 2 slots, so if anything bad happened to one of it, i still have the others.."

I agree. I only ever shot still photos with those make and model film cameras that ran 2 sets of 35mm film strips inside them, and only ever shot moving pictures with film cameras that also run 2 sets of film reels in them simultaneously. One can never be too safe, after all.

In case you haven't noticed digital files are NOT FILM. They are computer data that can become corrupted or accidentally deleted. At capture they are stored on memory cards that can fail and are small enough to lose or beak very easily. Than they are copied to hard drives which can also fail or the files can be corrupted during copying. However due to the ability to easily have multiple backups of the files they are also the most robust photo storage medium ever created. By dismissing dual card slots for instantaneous back up at capture you are ignoring a key advantage and a key liability of shooting digital all at the same time and coming off as a childish fanboy who can't stand any criticism of a canon camera no matter how reasonable it is.

@ Illumina: sorry for the quite delayed reply (was busy)... you're right, its about personal preferences. But I never experienced card failure, even in severe weather (I love nature shooting), even my old Rebel with SD card worked well (but I always used non-cheapo cards). One card slot is like in the old film days: if your camera was flooded (had that once in a rain forest) or the lab made a mess, your shots on the film where lost... that's life.

Just yesterday, I read the comments section of the Canon SX50 HS review, and noticed someone giving constructive criticism about how he felt that the lengthy timespan between when a new camera would show up on the front page as a news item/preview, vs when it would finally come up again way later on in a full review, was just too long, and by that time, he would already have made his purchasing decision and so the review would often come too late for it to be useful to him. They apologized and said as for the time it takes to make so many reviews of so many cameras, there's no way around the reviews taking that long BUT, he then said, ok well then maybe you could at least put out some more bare essentials type of review of the performance aspect, as something to be able to put up quicker, before releasing the more thorough full review.

Looks like they actually listened to his feedback, and that pleases me very much.

I bought my 6D last week in Japan. Before buying it I had the chance to use for few hours the 6D and the D600. The 6D felt good immediately: ergonomics, weight and feeling. The D600 was intimidating ( I own several camera bodies, so I am not a rookie) , It has buttons and dials everwhere, very messy feeling. The menus of Nikon are longer than then the screen so actually many items are hidden unless you scroll down. The raw photos I shot with both camera look fine to me. blowing out the image on the latest 27 inch I mac there were no big issues. I noticed that despite the canon AF Has less points I could focus much faster and accurately in the dark environment.The bottom line: the cameras are both great at take fantastic photos but Canon has packaged the sensor and the electronic in a more user friendly body. At the end of the day the best camera is the one you have with you when needed and I would feel more incline to walk with the 6D that with the d600

You should write for DP! Good insights and although I don't have either th6D or D600 (5Dmk2 and Nikon D200 in my kit) I totally agree... Nikon is a button freak's dream. But remember, until recently Canon had one long, scrolling list of options (20D, 30D)... the only real differences are user-interface techniques!

I love how Canon manages to avoid scrolling in nearly all of its menus: make them two dimensional. With the tabs running across the top, you can fit more of them in, and thus have only one screen's worth of settings per tab. Some of the other manufacturers ought to take notes.

Lucafeb, you say it! We have bot an extended Canon and Nikon gear in our household as my wife is a Nikonian since her youth, and I changed from Nikon to Canon when I went digital. The Nikons are quite a user interface nightmare, in particular its menus, my wife often fiddles with settings when I already shoot (and she's a smart girl, a physicist). The last easy-to-use Nikon was the FM-2 (I still have one and love it).

The 6D has however, is SMALL. So beautifully compact and well-proportioned. I'm a Nikon guy who is not so happy with the recent directions of the D7000/D600 body design. (DAT /GRIP/!) and I can tell you truthfully I am envious.

I agree, the first thing that struck me about the D600 was dat grip! Picked up and my hand wanted to let go and drop it, though honestly I don't like the 6D's grip coming from a 5DII and it's size. It's lighter weight and compact body + weather sealing make it the better overall, and the better AF and silent shooting are very desirable, but the camera needs more of a punch for the price point

NOTE: specs say nothing about any external microphone connectivity, although on the image of the camera, there is a little door with a MIC logo on it, don't know what that is, as the door is closed, he-he-he.

All HDSLR video cameras that have OVFs don't have a VF in video mode. That's what the Zacuto finder or an HDMI field monitor is for.

60p? The only FF DSLRs with 1080p60 are the ones that use the AVCHD codec. 60p is great for slow-mo, but 24p is the most used frame rate for HDSLR videographers because it provides a more filmlike, cinematic look.

I'd be very surprised if it didn't have a microphone jack as even the T3i has one.

All of the Canon DSLR a great choices for videography. They all have great low-light ability in video mode. In still mode the Nikons have the edge, but Canon's downsampling algorithms are superb, so for the most part, they get class leading low-light performance for video shooting.

Search Vimeo for "Canon 6D" to see dozens of extremely creative, well shot videos.

Thanks, Marike6. I have been shooting with 16mm film cameras that have OPTICAL VIEWFINDERS that actually WORK while you are shooting moving images!!! Instead off going BLANK, in other words. Canon was able to make such cameras before, both for Super 8 and 16mm formats (Canon Scopic). What has happened now, have they suddenly gone cheap?

Re. the frame rates, folks in Europe do not much use 24fps, since they prefer to use 25fps. Not sure if the Canons can do that.

No idea about the video recording bitrates that the Canons can deliver. I read something (not in the DP review) that the 6D actually can record film-like All-I intraframe video, not sure if the 60D or 60Da can do that or not?

Unless a very specific (usually subjective) requirement is in place, there is little point in arguing whether 6D or D600 is "better". They are both equally "good" and, in general, state-of-the-art DSLR cameras. There is no significant difference between them, and where there is, it is on very specific features, which brings us back to the beginning of this paragraph. Personally, full-frame cameras where out of my interest radar due to their increased weight, volume and price. Canon changed that with 6D. I also checked D600 but, after handling it, was not convinced of its physical (weight/volume) improvements. Price-wise, I was fortunate to to get a 6D on a much lower price than D600 due to a retailer discount scheme and Canon's rebate program. Well done, Canon.

I have to agree with the first half of RStygas statement. I had rented both the 6D and D600 and put them to practical use in an attempt to make a purchasing decision. I became comfortable with each over that time, though neither was perfect. The image quality is comparable, especially if you shoot RAW and do some light post-processing. While there are more AF points on the D600, the center 9 cross points aren't nearly as sensitive as the one in the center of the 6D. Both have their AF points mostly in the center of the frame, which makes them both pretty mediocre at tracking moving subjects - the D600 being slightly less mediocre (though this leads me to say the difference in FPS is pretty negligible if a camera can't track a subject worth a darn).

As someone who isn't invested in either company's lenses, they're both good cameras when held at arms' length. They both have their individual and shared deficiencies, but they're great for almost anyone who's not a pro sports photographer.

I also have to agree with Gothmoth, and that's another part of my conclusion when comparing these cameras in practical use: Neither felt to me like they were worth $2,000 for just the body. There were just enough compromises on both that ate away at my feeling of perceived value. I'd gladly buy one or the other once the selling price drops to $1,700 for either.

"there is little point in arguing whether 6D or D600 is "better". They are both equally "good" and, in general, state-of-the-art DSLR cameras. There is no significant difference between them, and where there is, it is on very specific features."

MY TAKE: You are right. Of course, one of these "specific feature differences" that you mention must be that whereas the NIKON D600 generates its own internal spray matter and cleverly deposits onto the camera's CMOS sensor, the Canon 5D will leave your sensor damn well alone.

F. Carver: "MY TAKE: You are right. Of course, one of these "specific feature differences" that you mention must be that whereas the NIKON D600 generates its own internal spray matter and cleverly deposits onto the camera's CMOS sensor, the Canon 5D will leave your sensor damn well alone.

For some finicky folks, even little things like this may matter some."

Sensor dust is not a camera feature but a QC issue. YOu can blame Nikon but not a specific DSLR. Pentax had a similar problem with K-5 and they took action to solve it.

whyamihere, interesting to read your comment about the AF systems in real life (DPR's "metering and AF accuracy" thing does not tell anything useful about real life AF performance). Fits exactly inreview vids you can see @ digital rev tv.

Nikons 39 pt AF system implanted from APS D7000 into the D600 makes spec freaks happy but does not really make sense as all the points are crowded in the center of the picture. I'd prefer here the 6D's AF system with its much more sensitive center AF sensor.

Many AF points only make sense in FF if they cover a bigger part of the whole picture (I love my 5D3 for that).

About sensor dust/oil...you really have to weigh a few nearly invisible spots against getting a better sensor (especially at low ISOs), faster framerate, dual card slots, a 100% finder, and a better AF system. IMO, the D600 has a lot of nice advantages that make it easier/more convenient to get the pictures you want. It's also cheaper now. That outweighs the dust problem, which goes away after a while and can be solved by users.

I tested the shadow noise at base ISO myself. I compared a 60D, the GH2 (my friend owns one), the 6D, and the D600. I'm not sure exactly how many stops better they are from each other, but if the GH2 is one unit better than the 60D, the 6D is two units better than the 60D and the D600 is 3.5 units better than the 60D.

The 60D has fairly intrusive shadow noise. I have to deal with this because I deal with dynamic range issues by underexposing and brightening the scene in post (I have ways of using lots of highlight data).

High-ISO noise is another story; the 60D smushes the GH2, and both FF cameras are easily a lot better than the 60D.

@zigi_S like I said biased eyes. At that ISO the Canon might be maybe a 1/3 stop better depending on where you look but they are pretty much equal. Certainly the differnce isn't enough to matter for practical purposes.

@chlamchowder My view is simple in this case. If you shoot Canon, buy it and be thrilled. If you shoot or want to be using Nikon, go for the d600, the IQ is magical. Just seeing it (6d) makes me want one! but that wouldn’t be practical body to our two d600 considering our lenses:)

Agree with rallyfan. Sort of secondary nature of some differences in features compared to 600d. Although individual, I am always all about IQ and that is the "wow factor" of this very portable, solid built camera. I use dual slots all the time, but can cope with some extra care. Viewfinder.. my d90 had 1% less coverage, a non-issue. AF, a non-issue for me either. I focus in LV for landscape and shoot with a single point handheld. It would be a shame to over look what this camera really means, brings and the possibilities it opens. Good times..Hynek

I agree that the 6D is an excellent camera by itself, but as stated in the review, the problems is that the D600 presents some serious competition. Someone considering moving up to FF would really be tempted by the D600. The D600 can do LV focusing in landscapes and single point shooting like the 6D (with a few extra megapixels), but has quite a bit of extra that the 6D doesn't. Faster framerate, a more flexible AF system, less shadow noise at low ISOs, dual card slots, a 100% viewfinder...it all starts to add up.So while the 6D is a great camera, it might struggle to compete for buyers who don't already have a lot invested in Canon FF glass (and those users probably already have a FF body and would be less tempted to buy a new camera...)

"Someone considering moving up to FF would really be tempted by the D600."

Agreed. Having the clever, Nikon patented "internal sensor lubrication and spray washing" feature is a rather tantalizing extra benefit of the Nikon D600. Many will be tempted by it -- in comparison, the Canon's sensor is probably "too dry, too clean."

Karl Summers, it depends on the particular lens, there are some very nice Nikkors. But overall you are right. If you are inrto shooting with superteles, then the current Nikkors are mostly no match for Canon lenses. I use Canon but was confronted with this problem when my wife looked for a new 500 mm supertele for her Nikon gear. After checking reviews (in particular in some German photozines) she finally was frustrated about the Nikkors and got a Sigma 500/4.5 (no IS but superb optical and mechanical quality). There's a solid reason why Canons white giants still dominate sports, action and wildlife photography.

Another point is that the Canon lens system still provides the biggest selection range, including extremely fast f=1.2 primes that have some fans (e.g. me).

Even after eighteen months of reviewing the latest, greatest, shiniest and must-buy-me-est new gear, DPReview staffer Carey Rose has continued to use older DSLR cameras for his freelance work. But now, that might be changing.

Born and raised in New Zealand, DPR reader Sarnim Dean has been surrounded his whole life by wildlife and landscapes many of us only dream of visiting. He explores the country on his mountain bike and with his camera. Take a look at some of his images and find out more about him in our Q&A. See gallery

Bill Leigh Brewer's career in photography started with a road trip, a Canon AE-1, lots of Kodachrome 25, and The Clash. His landscapes lend a surrealist quality to the commonplace and unique aspects of Americana, without demeaning its subjects. Take a look at his work and read our Q&A. See gallery

Latest in-depth reviews

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.

The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.

Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.

The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.